By: 1. Kenneth A. Kim John R. Nofsinger

And 2. A. C. Fernando

Lesson 26

Summary◦ 1. Introduction

Monopoly is that one person or company controls 1/3 of the local or national market

Abuses of monopolies are High prices Wrong allocation of resources Abuse of investors/markets by giving wrong information. Preventing inventions Economic instability Corruption and bribery Economic power in the hands of few

◦ Anti-monopoly laws Prevents firms to make monopoly Prevent unfair price discrimination

◦ Competitive firm is preferred because Low prices Avoid wastages for competition Efficiency Consumers’ tastes and preferences

◦ 2. The concept, logic and benefits of competition Entrepreneurial culture leads to more producers and

sellers Increased supply capabilities Cost-cutting through research efforts Reduction in wastages, & improvement in efficiency &

productivity Customer focused More access to foreign market Favourable environment for trade and investment Best sources utilization Wide range of available goods and services

◦ Regulation of competition Competition must be regulated through some

legislation which helps in; Firms dominance Prevents monopolies Controlling anti-competitive acts like

Full line forcing Predatory pricing

◦ Corporate governance under limited competition Regulatory barriers weaken the managerial efforts

and board supervisions leads to governance issues.

◦ Constraints to competition in developing countries Nationalization and “public interest” cause

constraints for firms to work efficiently.

◦ Banks’ role in restraining emergence of securities markets Banks credit reduces the need to invest in the

securities markets Banks can play vital role to analyse the companies

value for further businesses.

◦ Lack of competition promotes ownership

concentration

More competitive markets result in more public firm

Less competitive markets result in more private firms

◦ 3. Benefits of competition to stakeholders

Managers

products

◦ Benefits of competition Competition in the product market

Quality products Low prices

Competition in the capital market Relationship of firms and financial institutions

Economic Power and Political Influence Firms can take political influence for their benefits Monopolistic market can lead toward the political

influence, would results in bad governance. Competition is the only solution.

◦ Enforcement of Good Governance

First go for private enforcement through market

mechanism

Or self-regulation through trade associations

Or public enforcement

Positive competition reduces the burden of

enforcement

Enforcement is vital

◦ Challenges to Good Enforcement Resources Meaningful sanctions A real big challenge

◦ Competition Agencies and Competition Policies To prevent anti-competitive practices To resist the lobbying of interest groups Competition policy should be at the top. Adequate resources to investigate anti-competitive

practices.

◦ Good competition policy should be there to; Prevent monopoly Ensure economic efficiency Control dominant firms Discourage merger and acquisition Check barriers for new entrants to market prevent anti-competitive agreements Apply to all major segments of the economy Protect small firms

◦ Competition boosts corporate governance

Lecture Outlines ◦ Introduction

Corporate governance:advanced vs. developing nations Globalization tends the standards of corporate governance

from local to global perspective So developing nation should have to work hard.

◦ Problems faced by developing and transition economies Still in process of basic market institutions to regulate Internal owner vs. external owner Inflow of new capital is not facilitated Lack of property rights, contract violations and self-dealing

are the core issues, not just the owners and controllers relationship

Act are there but it is hard to implement. Judiciary, bureaucracy and regulatory bodies are not

alert to stop corporate misgovernance.

◦ Summary of problems facing these economies Low economic growth Public sectors dominance i.e. CG is for private

sectors Lack of effectiveness of privatization Lack of awareness among shareholders Govt. influence Internal owners are more influential than external

owner (no voting powers) More concentration toward family-owned

corporations.

Lack of legal protection for investors No inflow of new capital Low property rights and contract laws. Lack of well regulatory banking sector Exit mechanism, bankruptcy and foreclosure (taking

possession of mortgage property) norms are absent. No sound securities market Lack of competition Corruption and mismanagement Non-uniform guidelines by the govt. for all

companies

◦ Corporate Governance Models Insider system

Insider own majority of the company shares Voting rights Power to monitor management Keep their investment for long period in a firm Support decisions for long period of time Dominant owners can use the firms’ assets by colluding

with the management, at the expense of minority shareholders.

Irresponsible exercise of power resulting waste resources and drain company productivity levels.

Outsider system Large number of owners hold small number of company

shares Can’t monitor management Can’t involve in management decisions Common law countries (UK, USA) own this system Independent board members to monitor managerial

behaviour More accountable and less corrupt Having dispersed ownership structure with some

weaknesses Looking for short term maximization

Conflicts between directors and owners

Steps were mooted (debated) to root out the misdemeanors of the ill-behaved corporations.

It was easy to incorporate the required transformational changes in the corporate sphere of advanced countries where the systems and procedures and regulatory bodies to combat and arrest the declining standards were in place, albeit in an immature degree, it was difficult in the case of developing and transition economies where everything had to be built from the scratch.

Earlier, the common perspective of Corporate Governance was to respect the individual system of each country. But in the context of globalization with its attendant enhanced transnational movement of goods and services and for borderless capital markets, a set of global standards for corporate governance is being attempted in recent times.

In such a scenario, it is imperative that developing and transition economies should try to put in place required systems and institutions with a view to benefiting from the world-wide application of the principles and percepts of best corporate governance practices.

Many developing, emerging and transition economies lack, or are now in the process, of developing the most basic market institutions.

Internal owners dominate in many companies, while

the external owners do not have enough voting power

to control the companies and thereby to ensure for

themselves appropriate returns.

The capital markets are just developing and do not

facilitate the inflow of new capital as intended.

Further, market transactions are often based on the

abuse of inside information.

The need for corporate governance in developing, emerging and transition economies extends far beyond resolving problems stemming from the separation of ownership and control, which is the core and substance behind the need for corporate governance.

Developing and emerging economies are constantly confronted with issues such as the lack of property rights, the abuse of minority shareholders, contract violations, asset stripping and self-dealing.

To make matters worse, these acts often go unpunished since many developing, emerging and transition economies lack the necessary political and economic institutions to enable democracy and markets to function.

In the context of developing, emerging and transition economies, instituting corporate governance entails establishing democratic, market-based institutions as well as sound guidelines for how companies are run internally.

The judiciary is so lethargic and bureaucratic that it takes more than a couple of decades to bring the scamsters to book..

Regulatory bodies are not alert, government appointees in Boards are lax, due to partisan politics and corruption in government, the bureaucracy hardly play their roles in effectively stemming the damages caused by corporate misgovernance.

Lower economic growth. Dominant public sector – the general perception

is that corporate governance is meant for the private sector and the public sector does not fall within its purview.

Lack of effectiveness of privatisation. Lack of awareness among shareholders. Greater government influence, and less

autonomy to enterprises. Internal owners dominate more than a company’s

external owners. Given their discretionary powers, company managers use the company resources to their own advantage. Investors, therefore, cannot get their returns from cash flow of the company from the projects.

External owners do not have enough voting power.

Concentration of ownership in the hands of few individuals and family-owned corporations.

Lack of strong legal protection for investors in developing countries that leads to concentration of ownership which is used as a means to overcome the power of the management. This, leads to misappropriation of minority interests.

Capital markets are underdeveloped and do not facilitate the inflow of new capital.

Market transactions are often based on abuse of internal information.

Redrawing property rights and contract laws are slow in coming.

Lack of well regulated banking sector. Exit mechanisms, bankruptcy and foreclosure

norms are absent. Sound securities market do not exist. Competitive markets have not developed. Corruption and mismanagement. Non-uniform guidelines: the government –

formulated guidelines to ensure better governance are not uniformly applied to all companies.

The countries with developed economies apply two different systems of corporate governance: the group-based system and the market-based one or, as they are often referred to, the insider and outsider systems.

In concentrated ownership structures, ownership and/or control is concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals, families, managers, directors, holding companies, banks and/or other non-financial corporations.

Insiders exercise control over companies in several ways; own the majority of the company shares and voting rights; own some shares, but enjoy the majority of the voting rights.

Companies that are controlled by insiders enjoy certain advantages. Insiders have the power and the incentive to monitor management closely thereby minimising the potential for mismanagement and fraud.

Insiders tend to keep their investment in a firm for long periods of time. As a result, insiders tend to support decisions that will enhance a firm's long-term performance as opposed to decisions designed to maximise short-term gains.

However, insider systems predispose a company to certain corporate governance failures. One is that dominant owners and/or vote holders can bully or collude with management to expropriate the firm’s assets at the expense of minority shareholders. This is a significant risk when minority shareholders do not enjoy legal rights.

Insiders who exercise their power irresponsibly waste resources and drain company productivity levels; they also foster investor reluctance and illiquid capital markets. Shallow capital markets, in turn, deprive companies of capital and prevent investors from diversifying their risks.

Dispersed ownership is the other type of ownership structure. In this scenario, a large number of owners hold a small number of company shares. Small shareholders have little incentive to closely monitor a company's activities and tend not to be involved in management decisions or policies.

Hence, they are called outsiders, and dispersed ownership structures are referred to as outsider systems.

Common Law countries such as the UK and the US tend to have dispersed ownership structures. The outsider system or Anglo-American, market-based model is characterised by the ideology of corporate individualism and private ownership, a well-developed and liquid capital market, with a large number of shareholders, and a small concentration of investors.

The corporate control is realised through the market and outside investors.

In contrast to insider systems, owners in outsider systems rely on independent board members to monitor managerial behaviour and keep it in check.

As a result, outsider systems are considered more accountable and less corrupt and they tend to foster liquid capital markets. Dispersed ownership structures have certain weaknesses. Dispersed owners tend to be interested in short-term profit maximisation. They tend to approve policies and strategies that will yield short-term gains, but that may not necessarily promote long-term company performance.

At times, this can lead to conflicts between directors and owners, and to frequent ownership changes because shareholders may divest in the hopes of reaping higher profits elsewhere, both of which weaken company stability. Small-scale investors have less financial incentive to vigilantly monitor boardroom decisions and to hold directors accountable. Directors who support unsound decisions may remain on the board when it is in the company's interest that they be removed.

Summary ◦ Introduction

Corporate governance:advanced vs. developing nations Globalization tends the standards of corporate governance

from local to global perspective So developing nation should have to work hard.

◦ Problems faced by developing and transition economies Still in process of basic market institutions to regulate Internal owner vs. external owner Inflow of new capital is not facilitated Lack of property rights, contract violations and self-dealing

are the core issues, not just the owners and controllers relationship

Act are there but it is hard to implement. Judiciary, bureaucracy and regulatory bodies are not

alert to stop corporate misgovernance.

◦ Summary of problems facing these economies Low economic growth Public sectors dominance i.e. CG is for private

sectors Lack of effectiveness of privatization Lack of awareness among shareholders Govt. influence Internal owners are more influential than external

owner (no voting powers) More concentration toward family-owned

corporations.

Lack of legal protection for investors No inflow of new capital Low property rights and contract laws. Lack of well regulatory banking sector Exit mechanism, bankruptcy and foreclosure (taking

possession of mortgage property) norms are absent. No sound securities market Lack of competition Corruption and mismanagement Non-uniform guidelines by the govt. for all

companies

◦ Corporate Governance Models Insider system

Insider own majority of the company shares Voting rights Power to monitor management Keep their investment for long period in a firm Support decisions for long period of time Dominant owners can use the firms’ assets by colluding

with the management, at the expense of minority shareholders.

Irresponsible exercise of power resulting waste resources and drain company productivity levels.